Apart from the flawed nature of her view that the volume of comments somehow lends them credibility, I have mixed views about JC’s position in the original article.

I tend to concur with the basic thrust, which decries dogma and suggests that science should be open and willing to accept debate. But……..

I think she is being EXTREMELY naive about what is reasonable debate, and what passes for debate with regard to climate science. Unfortunately, the debate on this issue has been hijacked by opinion writers and politicians with agendas, and the real science debate has been drowned out.

The final paragraph in the article is most telling (IMO).

“….Disagreement is part of what moves science forward. Why did the email authors find it important to deal with people that are willfully ignorant and trying to deceive? Why not ignore them? Trying to deceive whom about what? Sowing doubt about the IPCC findings? Well that should be part and parcel of science. Scientists dealing with willfully ignorant people or people that are trying to deceive because of concerns that this ignorance or deception is motivated by what, exactly?
How is Steve McIntyre willfully ignorant or trying to deceive? He was asking questions about statistical analysis methods and accountability. How is Pat Michaels willfully ignorant or trying to deceive? Pat accepts the basics of AGW theory, but does not see evidence of a high CO2 sensitivity and doesnÃ¢ÂÂt buy the argument that warming is Ã¢ÂÂbad.Ã¢ÂÂ…”

Yes, disagreement IS what moves science forward. But to criticise scientists for attempting to deal with ignorant decievers is – not to put too fine a point on it – away with the fairies! Scientists NEED to deal with these fools, because it is people like Watts and Monckton who are hogging the limelight, and getting the general population and politicians to accept their nonsensical rantings. Ignoring them does not work, and it is demonstrably so.

I think there are very few people (and I am not one of them) who think that ‘skeptics’ like McIntyre are willfully ignorant or trying to deceive. I believe McIntyre (and others like him) asks quite legitimate scientific questions, and if they cannot be properly answered, the science underpinning AGW is flawed (it’s not). But its not the McIntyres of the world that are the problem – its the Moncktons and the Inhofes and Soons. Does she really think that scientists should ignore them?

I agree with your take on it mandas. I think her biggest failing, and only charitable explanation I have for her extreme and slanted view, is that she paints a broad spectrum of viewpoints on both sides with a two single brush strokes and then shoehorns everything out there into a very cartoonish narrative.